Crawley Borough Council (202016326)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016326

Crawley Borough Council

31 October 2021


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage to her laptop computer following electrical work in the property.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The resident is disabled and it is recorded that she is vulnerable.
  2. The sample introductory/secure tenancy agreement provided states that:
    1. The landlord is not responsible for the loss or damage of personal property “no matter how they become damaged” (unless this is caused by negligence).
    2. The landlord “strongly advises that you take out and keep current contents insurance…”.
  3. On 30 November 2020 the contractor logged the resident’s feedback. This was a complaint about a visit by an operative to the property on 27 November 2020 to install two smoke alarms and a heat detector. The operative reportedly switched the electricity off without the resident’s consent and the resident said that this broke the laptop computer which was her ‘lifeline’. She also said that it caused her breathing medical equipment to be turned off, which sent warnings to emergency services. The resident wanted compensation as her computer was two years old and stopped working when the electricity was turned off.
  4. On 22 December 2020 the contractor issued a response to the resident. This stated that:
    1. It apologised for the issue that arose.
    2. Its operative stated in his report that “he mentioned he was going to be turning off the power” and it was standard procedure to keep residents informed of the works that the operatives will be carrying out.
    3. There was not enough evidence linking the fault with the computer with the power supply following the operative’s appointment.
    4. There was not enough evidence stating that the computer was working before the appointment.
    5. Following an earlier discussion with the resident on 21 December 2020 it understood that the resident remained dissatisfied, so it would progress the complaint to stage two.
  5. On 22 December 2020 the complaint was forwarded to a member of the landlord’s staff for investigation, with a requested response deadline of 15 January 2021. The resident, who was noted to be vulnerable, did not consider that the operative had been truthful and said that he had not made her aware that the power would be turned off.
  6. The landlord and contractor discussed the complaint.
    1. On 24 December 2020 the contractor emailed the landlord with details of its operative’s feedback from his visit to the property in November 2020. This stated that the resident was informed of the repairs that he would be carrying out and that the power would be turned off.
    2. The landlord enquired into the decision not to pay the resident compensation.
      The contractor explained the basis of this decision. The contractor explained that from the operative’s report, it believed that the resident was made aware that the power was to be turned off and there was no confirmation that the damage to the laptop would have been caused by the operative’s works. The contractor also explained that had there been a power surge, it was unlikely that this would have affected the laptop alone.
  7. The landlord issued a stage two and final response on 13 January 2021:
    1. The landlord understood that the resident was unhappy with the decision of the contractor not to compensate her for the repair required to her laptop following the electrical work carried out in the property. The resident told the landlord that the laptop repair would cost £436 and she did not have insurance to cover this.
    2. The landlord declined the resident’s request for compensation because:
      1. The engineer’s report advised that the resident was made aware that the power would be turned off.
      2. The laptop repair report did not confirm that damages were caused by the work carried out.
      3. The only appliance that had a reported issue was the laptop and it was unlikely that this would have been the only effected item had there been a power surge.
    3. The landlord said that it reviewed the electrician’s report and said that “he (the electrician) believes he made it clear that the electricity supply would be disrupted”. The landlord also said that laptops may be disconnected from power and run on their own so it was not clear that an interruption would have caused a problem and there was no evidence of a power surge.
    4. The landlord said that it was clear in the tenancy information that residents should have their own insurance.      
    5. It concluded the complaint process with details of the next steps.
  8. Following the resident’s escalation of the complaint to the Ombudsman, she was advised of the limitation of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in considering complaints about damages. The Ombudsman also directed the resident to consider her options through an insurance claim or court (May 2021). It is worth noting that this investigation cannot determine whether the operative’s actions resulted in damage to the resident’s belongings.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman has considered if the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s complaint about the decision not to compensate her for the damage to her laptop computer.
  2. It is acknowledged that the resident is vulnerable and disabled and that she experienced distress and inconvenience due to the repair to her laptop which followed the electrical works at the property.
  3. The evidence seen shows that the landlord enquired into the complaint once it was escalated through the contractor. The landlord queried into the reason why compensation was not offered with the contractor. It also reviewed the feedback about what happened during the visit, which substantiated the contractor’s stage one response. With limited evidence to show the contrary, the landlord relied on the operative’s feedback to the contractor. The landlord then conveyed the reasons why the resident’s request for compensation could not be granted.
  4. The landlord responded reasonably because it investigated the complaint and considered the resident’s outstanding concern. Although the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, it ultimately took reasonable steps to address her concerns. It also pointed to its tenancy expectation of the resident, which is that she takes out her own insurance to protect her belongings. Although it is unfortunate that the resident’s laptop was damaged, the landlord has not been unreasonable in its response to her request for compensation.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage to her laptop computer following electrical work in the property.

Reasons

  1. The Ombudsman has not been able to determine the cause of damage to the laptop nor can the Ombudsman appropriately establish negligence. The Ombudsman has therefore only considered if the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s complaint. In this case, the landlord addressed the resident’s complaint by investigating what happened and then conveying this to the resident. The landlord also pointed to the tenancy expectations regarding damage to a resident’s belongings, which showed that its approach was reasonable.